It wouldn't occur to me in this day and age that 'gathered together' had to mean physically in the same location.
It hadn't occurred to me, either, until The Emergency struck us, but needs must (said he, nervously anticipating the unusual experience of a local church leaders' meeting via Zoom this evening!)
I do take @Eutychus' point, though, and look forward to the time when the physical gathering together is once more possible.
I do take @Eutychus' point, though, and look forward to the time when the physical gathering together is once more possible.
A bit more back on track here, the relevant question I foresee is whether you'll still look forward to it if part of the experience involves getting a QR code read off your smartphone on entry to the premises so that your movement can be tracked and matched to that of others to improve tracking of infected people (of course the government will pinky swear that this is for health purposes only).
Note, again, that an evangelical gathering in France seems to have been a major source of spread, exacerbated by no registration, and the same thing has apparently happened in India to a Muslim conference, exacerbated by the same lack of registration. I can't see that sort of thing going unaddressed by the powers that be, even with the most benign of intentions.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if tracking of this nature becomes part of the "new normal" post-lockdown, and even less surprised if this meets pushback from many churches - not just whacky charismatic ones, but ones more usually attended by lawyers keen on civil liberties.
Perhaps not. But if my prediction is correct, the social pressure and stigma on those that don't have one will be similar to that on those not respecting social distancing today, for much the same reasons.
Core beliefs aside, the government is almost certainly more likely to express an interest in who attends religious gatherings than, say, the opera.
Spotting members of the intelligence community on one of their "undercover" expeditions to our church used to be a favourite pastime, in the days when we could actually meet. Scoff all you like, but this has been a fact of life in France since about forever (well probably since about 1905).
The same question applies - to you and to those on this thread who seem to think that a health emergency gives carte blanche to all sorts of prohibitions and "no rights" to religious expression. Specifically religious, because unlike many other gatherings, it's an activity that intersects with core beliefs and its gatherings are usually free of charge and non-registered. And because I've quoted two precedents from the current crisis, from different religions, that have been identified as national or even international contagion hotspots. Not counting the one in South Korea.
The same question applies - to you and to those on this thread who seem to think that a health emergency gives carte blanche to all sorts of prohibitions and "no rights" to religious expression.
I don't think that's what we are saying at all; and we would be rightly incensed if a health emergency led to heavy-handed religious policing or restrictions. (That of course is an issue for which my Baptist forebears campaigned and even died). I would be extremely wary, for instance, of expecting people to have to "register" before attending a religious event unless it was for a very precise and well-defined time (although, of course, this sort of information is theoretically already available in the case of folk attending pre-booked ticketed events such as concerts and even religious conferences).
What I do think we are saying is that there is a balance to be struck between religious freedom,. public responsibility, health considerations and government restrictions - a balance which isn't easy to get right. The problem at the moment, at least here in Britain with Parliament in recess, is the government's (lack of) accountability to the people.
IMO, positing the restrictions as specifically an attack on religion is all sorts of crazy. At least in the west.
I never said that. I said that the restrictions can infringe religious freedoms that have previously been taken for granted and/or seen as sacred cows even by secular states. I have first-hand knowledge of the surveillance of religious groups by the state, and I do not have a tinfoil hat. I'm not going to give current examples, but I have plenty of historic ones.
I would be extremely wary, for instance, of expecting people to have to "register" before attending a religious event unless it was for a very precise and well-defined time (although, of course, this sort of information is theoretically already available in the case of folk attending pre-booked ticketed events such as concerts and even religious conferences).
I predict that either this will at least be highly recommended and become as commonplace as opening your bag at the entrance to a department store used to be in London in the 1970s IRA bombing campaigns. But unlike that measure, it will use technology that it will be much harder to undo.
And even without any such measures, there will be stigma attached to religious groups for engaging in precisely all the behaviours we've been told not to engage in. The Mulhouse church has received death threats and its members been physically threatened.
It's interesting that, in Britain, quite a number of "migrant" churches have wanted to "register" with our denomination, mainly (it seems to me) because they have thought it was necessary to gain some kind of "official" status.Clearly this represented the situation in their countries of origin. (I'm not thinking of becoming a registered charity, by the way, nor of registering a building for marriages).
This sort of 'umbrella' registration sees a spike in France every time a report on cults comes out. I think it's largely a waste of time. Denominations drop churches down a deep hole if there's a problem and a credible church doesn't need that kind of cover. The authorities know who I am and who our church are and that's what counts.
However, I'm curious as to what status your church has if it isn't even a registered charity. Not having some sort of official registration is essentially impossible in France if you want to meet anywhere other than in someone's home.
On the American side, Jerry Falwell Jr. has been insisting that all Liberty University students return to campus, and he has been getting a lot of flack for it, from parents, students, staff, community leaders, and the governor. So what happens, the first day of classes? A Liberty student tests positive.
Just because you have the "freedom" of religion, it does not mean you have license to exercise what you think is your "God-given right."
It is interesting to note that the Bible never speaks of "rights" but always speaks of responsibilities to God and to humankind.
I'm curious as to what status your church has if it isn't even a registered charity. Not having some sort of official registration is essentially impossible in France if you want to meet anywhere other than in someone's home.
As a smaller Baptist church we fall under what are called the "excepting regulations" whereby we count as a charity by virtue of being part of the wider denomination. Larger churches with a turnover of more than £100k/annum do have to register as charities in their own right, and the Charity Commission has been talking about ending the "excepting" status for years.
However my understanding is that a church doesn't absolutely have to be a charity although, if it isn't, it can't claim the advantages of tax breaks such as Gift Aid and would have difficulty in owning property or even opening a bank account. It would also remove a large element of outside accountability. I understand that there are some independent-minded churches who regard charitable status as a taint by the nefarious Civil State; I know for a fact that some won't register for weddings because they don't want to act as the State's agents.
What I do think we are saying is that there is a balance to be struck between religious freedom,. public responsibility, health considerations and government restrictions - a balance which isn't easy to get right.
I have zero problem with bans of all gatherings, including religious ones, for as long as it takes to get testing up to the level being done in South Korea, because that's the only way it's going to be safe for people to gather. Religious gatherings don't just endanger the people who attend them; they endanger everyone in the surrounding communities. Your right to practice your religion ends when it threatens my life.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor-at-large for the Catholic magazine America, suggested that religious groups that continued to meet in large numbers were hypocritical.
“I’m stunned by church leaders who reject the most basic advice from public health officials during a pandemic,” he said in an interview. “It’s just plain old stupidity, of the type that puts people’s lives in danger. As such, it’s anti-life. The next time any of these groups calls themselves pro-life, we need to remind ourselves about these death-dealing decisions.”
I am enraged when I read about Christian megachurches continuing to meet and Orthodox Jews continuing to hold large weddings and bar mitzvahs and keeping their schools open. They're not just threatening their own health, their own lives. They're threatening the health and lives of the first responders they will call when they get sick, of the healthcare workers who will care for them, of the people they call to deliver groceries to them.
It wouldn't occur to me in this day and age that 'gathered together' had to mean physically in the same location.
What Karl said. We did Morning Prayer on zoom again on Sunday. I was in a room by myself with a mic and headphones. I wasn't worshipping alone.
Don't get me wrong - I think our bodies being physically present together is important, and I look forward to being able to do that again. But although what we have now isn't as good as in-person church, Christ is still present.
Your approach to the 2 seemed to me a very literal one, and that's why I made the remark I did about the 3. If you're right about the 2, then you must adhere to the 3.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus says the minimum is two
And if you're right in your approach, a maximum of 3.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
I have zero problem with bans of all gatherings, including religious ones, for as long as it takes to get testing up to the level being done in South Korea, because that's the only way it's going to be safe for people to gather. Religious gatherings don't just endanger the people who attend them; they endanger everyone in the surrounding communities. Your right to practice your religion ends when it threatens my life.
South Korea isn't just doing testing: it's doing massive individual surveillance. How do you, from the US civil liberties tradition, view the prospect of every person attending every church gathering logging their presence there using a QR code on a smartphone at the door?
Because absent a massively available, safe vaccine, which must surely be at least months away, I can't see any other way of getting back out of lockdown than mass testing AND surveillance, and I fully expect it.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus says the minimum is two
And if you're right in your approach, a maximum of 3.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus says the minimum is two
And if you're right in your approach, a maximum of 3.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
Exactly
As I suggested yesterday, I wonder if Jesus is setting this against the minimum number of 10 males that is needed to make a synagogue meeting quorate - assuming that this law already existed in Jewish practice of the time. In other words: "You don't need to have ten people for me to be present, I'll be just as present in a gathering of only two or three of you".
Obviously you can't have a gathering of just one person - but don't we believe Christ is with us always, anyway?
The legislation giving Police the powers to stop and fine etc hasn't received the Royal assent. It's therefore not a law and any individual acting as if they think it is, is breaking the law. Simples!
Well the last part of this is just logically wrong.
On the theological angle, there's a whole question here about how essential gathering is to the Christian faith.
I mean sure, you can point to the thing about 2 or 3 gathered together (note: I agree on the drafting failure to indicate whether an amount greater than 3 still counts, where are the words "at least"?), and to another passage that encourages the habit of meeting together.
But focusing on that does rather raise questions about Christians who are ordinarily on their own. And not in a position to gather, or even just not inclined to. Hermits have long been a thing.
If, in the context of legal restrictions about gathering, people start saying how religiously important it is to gather... what exactly are they saying about all the times that gathering didn't occur anyway?
(To be honest, it's pretty typical for people to not be all that interested in a right/freedom they have until it's under threat.)
The legislation giving Police the powers to stop and fine etc hasn't received the Royal assent. It's therefore not a law and any individual acting as if they think it is, is breaking the law. Simples!
Well the last part of this is just logically wrong.
Aahh yes I see - what I meant to imply what that in seeking to a apply a non existent law (which that one still is), they are breaking another law by exceeding their powers.
Yes, sort of. Assuming it is a law that requires Royal Assent... delegated legislation generally doesn't... but I don't know what they're up to legislatively over there.
The consequences of doing something unlawful vary rather a lot, of course. Doing something "beyond power", not authorised, is not something I would regard as "breaking another law" unless there was in fact a specific law that covered what was done.
It brings to mind an opposite example that occurred here some years ago, where the Chief Minister announced that (for some reason that escapes me now) people would be able to drive their cars in a certain bus only lane... and the police promptly booked people for doing so, on the entirely correct premise that what the Chief Minister said in a press announcement wasn't the law, what the Legislative Assembly passed was the law.
This Tweet posted today by North Wales Police's Chief Constable is, however, amusing:
This morning travelling to Wrexham to go out on patrol and pulled over by my own local policing officers, doing a great job, although their faces were a picture. Keep up the good work.
South Korea isn't just doing testing: it's doing massive individual surveillance. How do you, from the US civil liberties tradition, view the prospect of every person attending every church gathering logging their presence there using a QR code on a smartphone at the door?
Nothing in this is at all unique to churches. You'd have to track them to bars, libraries, grocery stores, and everywhere else that people go.
You'd also have to track all their kids, because the adorable little plague vectors are good at sharing viruses with each other. But lots of kids don't have phones, but do go to the playground by themselves / with other neighbourhood kids. What's your solution for that?
It's not unique to churches. I think in South Korea it's a given for all the other places, too (@stetson may be able to confirm or deny). What is distinctive about places of worship is that committed believers often see attendance as an important part of their faith 'more so than bookworms might value a library), and at the same time attend free of charge and potentially anonymously. If you borrow a book from a library, it will know you've been there. If you've paid by card for a purchase in a bar or a grocery store, it will know too. And if you go to school, there's an attendance register. None of this is so far mandatory for places of worship.
Another point is that historically, intelligence services are more interested in where you worship than in where you shop or borrow books (this is unquestionably the case where I live).
I think I'd go along with QR code clocking in and out of a place of worship as a reasonable price to pay for being able to resume some sort of Christian normality, but I'm expecting that this would not meet with unmitigated enthusiasm from some of those quick to criticise Rodney Howard Browne, and I certainly wouldn't expect the surveillance potential to be ignored by the intelligence services.
South Korea isn't just doing testing: it's doing massive individual surveillance. How do you, from the US civil liberties tradition, view the prospect of every person attending every church gathering logging their presence there using a QR code on a smartphone at the door?
Nothing in this is at all unique to churches. You'd have to track them to bars, libraries, grocery stores, and everywhere else that people go.
You'd also have to track all their kids, because the adorable little plague vectors are good at sharing viruses with each other. But lots of kids don't have phones, but do go to the playground by themselves / with other neighbourhood kids. What's your solution for that?
That's what they're doing here. Under the Public Health Act, they interrogate you about everyone and everywhere. And they do the same with each of your contacts. Testing them all. This is easier when case numbers are small. We've 200 in a population of 1.1 million with some 11,000 tests conducted. Some of which where 1 test can represent 4 people: one member of a family tests positive, the family is presumed to all have it. And are mandatorily quarantined at home. Thus the true number of cases is probably 1000.
Of course you can go to a library and not take out a book, or visit a shop and make no purchase. Also, a lot of us are already having our cars tracked by ANPR.
My point is that "your contacts" need to include your kids' contacts. The proposal was for an electronic means of tracking who "your contacts" are - which people sat near you on the bus, who you were in the pub or at church with. That has to include "whose children shared playground climbing equipment with your children" if it's going to work, doesn't it? As it warms up, kids are going to be more and more keen to be outside.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus says the minimum is two
And if you're right in your approach, a maximum of 3.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
Exactly
As I suggested yesterday, I wonder if Jesus is setting this against the minimum number of 10 males that is needed to make a synagogue meeting quorate - assuming that this law already existed in Jewish practice of the time. In other words: "You don't need to have ten people for me to be present, I'll be just as present in a gathering of only two or three of you".
That’s the interpretation I have frequently heard—that Jesus is setting any gathering at all essentially as a minyan. Note in the linked article (from the Jewish Encyclopedia) that “It was the firm belief of the sages that wherever ten Israelites are assembled, either for worship or for the study of the Law, the Shekinah (Divine Presence) ‘dwells’ among them.”
But whether the Talmudic requirement of a minyan or the belief that the Shekinah is present within a minyan reflects oral teaching that was in place by the time of Jesus I can’t say.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Jesus says the minimum is two
And if you're right in your approach, a maximum of 3.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
My point is that "your contacts" need to include your kids' contacts. The proposal was for an electronic means of tracking who "your contacts" are - which people sat near you on the bus, who you were in the pub or at church with. That has to include "whose children shared playground climbing equipment with your children" if it's going to work, doesn't it? As it warms up, kids are going to be more and more keen to be outside.
Well, all playgrounds are closed here as of 3 weeks ago, as have been pubs, restaurants, gyms, churches, libraries, schools, universities, everything. So we're beyond the general physical contact issues now and need for that level of tracking now. We had the physical distance recommendations which have become enforceable since, for longer. The Public Health Act gives broad powers without any additional laws needing to be passed. They will arrest (police wearing protective equipment) violators, jail them, fine them. It's pretty blunt, very much like impounding a car on the spot if someone uses a cell phone and drives. There's no court, it just happens. But as far as I understand it, everyone is complying, and the enforcement is more police giving lawful orders and people saying okay, sorry.
You may walk in parks but keep physical distance. Busses are operating, rear entry to the bus only and at 20% capacity, people must space within, free now- no payment. Whole bus interior is sanitized every hour. You may go to a park, but children and people may not congregate at all. Grocery stores and pharmacies are open, limited number of people at a time, usually 10 max in the building, and they do not accept cash. You must pay with a card, and the card (credit or bank) will identify you and the time. One family member only in any store. All other stores are closed. We're taking a spray bottle of 1 part bleach, 9 parts water and spraying everything off that comes into the house.
While delivery is possible, mostly anything else you need is ordered online here, and you pick it up. If you're not in a car, they set it down and you collect it. Internet is completely free, data on cell phones is free of charge. If you cannot manage the internet, you call one of the agencies, or churches or the one mosque here and they do it for you and drop it to your door. Payment apps exist for cell phones allow the beaming of payments between them without physical contact. The number of volunteer deliverers is high, delivery is usually next day, though same day is occurring now. I think people are bored and want a legit reason to be safely out of their houses. The tendency is to comply here.
It is probably working. We had 9 new cases province wide yesterday (population of 1.1 million), down from 30 and 22 a few days ago. Our biggest worries are homeless and the jails. It looks like hotels are setting up to be used. With stay in your room orders for 2 weeks. Going to be hard.
Time frame? Schools and all other educational institutions are all online, with plans to have them online in the fall as well. I suspect no restrictions lifted for 3 months if trends are as I understand them. Though I wouldn't be surprised for restrictions through to 2021.
Comments
It hadn't occurred to me, either, until The Emergency struck us, but needs must (said he, nervously anticipating the unusual experience of a local church leaders' meeting via Zoom this evening!)
I do take @Eutychus' point, though, and look forward to the time when the physical gathering together is once more possible.
Note, again, that an evangelical gathering in France seems to have been a major source of spread, exacerbated by no registration, and the same thing has apparently happened in India to a Muslim conference, exacerbated by the same lack of registration. I can't see that sort of thing going unaddressed by the powers that be, even with the most benign of intentions.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if tracking of this nature becomes part of the "new normal" post-lockdown, and even less surprised if this meets pushback from many churches - not just whacky charismatic ones, but ones more usually attended by lawyers keen on civil liberties.
Having said that, I'm old enough, and cynical enough, to accept your forecast as probably true.
Spotting members of the intelligence community on one of their "undercover" expeditions to our church used to be a favourite pastime, in the days when we could actually meet. Scoff all you like, but this has been a fact of life in France since about forever (well probably since about 1905).
I FEAR that the current emergency MAY give rise to all sorts of semi-permanent, or permanent, restrictions on religious expression.
I HOPE I'm wrong, but time will tell.
What I do think we are saying is that there is a balance to be struck between religious freedom,. public responsibility, health considerations and government restrictions - a balance which isn't easy to get right. The problem at the moment, at least here in Britain with Parliament in recess, is the government's (lack of) accountability to the people.
I never said that. I said that the restrictions can infringe religious freedoms that have previously been taken for granted and/or seen as sacred cows even by secular states. I have first-hand knowledge of the surveillance of religious groups by the state, and I do not have a tinfoil hat. I'm not going to give current examples, but I have plenty of historic ones.
And even without any such measures, there will be stigma attached to religious groups for engaging in precisely all the behaviours we've been told not to engage in. The Mulhouse church has received death threats and its members been physically threatened.
However, I'm curious as to what status your church has if it isn't even a registered charity. Not having some sort of official registration is essentially impossible in France if you want to meet anywhere other than in someone's home.
Just because you have the "freedom" of religion, it does not mean you have license to exercise what you think is your "God-given right."
It is interesting to note that the Bible never speaks of "rights" but always speaks of responsibilities to God and to humankind.
However my understanding is that a church doesn't absolutely have to be a charity although, if it isn't, it can't claim the advantages of tax breaks such as Gift Aid and would have difficulty in owning property or even opening a bank account. It would also remove a large element of outside accountability. I understand that there are some independent-minded churches who regard charitable status as a taint by the nefarious Civil State; I know for a fact that some won't register for weddings because they don't want to act as the State's agents.
I have zero problem with bans of all gatherings, including religious ones, for as long as it takes to get testing up to the level being done in South Korea, because that's the only way it's going to be safe for people to gather. Religious gatherings don't just endanger the people who attend them; they endanger everyone in the surrounding communities. Your right to practice your religion ends when it threatens my life.
From the Los Angeles Times:
I am enraged when I read about Christian megachurches continuing to meet and Orthodox Jews continuing to hold large weddings and bar mitzvahs and keeping their schools open. They're not just threatening their own health, their own lives. They're threatening the health and lives of the first responders they will call when they get sick, of the healthcare workers who will care for them, of the people they call to deliver groceries to them.
What Karl said. We did Morning Prayer on zoom again on Sunday. I was in a room by myself with a mic and headphones. I wasn't worshipping alone.
Don't get me wrong - I think our bodies being physically present together is important, and I look forward to being able to do that again. But although what we have now isn't as good as in-person church, Christ is still present.
Not so. The numbers quoted by Jesus are clearly minimums
Not so. Jesus is simply saying ‘I’m with you’. It doesn’t matter the size of gathering. I’m sure was just as happy with one as with two three or a hundred!
South Korea isn't just doing testing: it's doing massive individual surveillance. How do you, from the US civil liberties tradition, view the prospect of every person attending every church gathering logging their presence there using a QR code on a smartphone at the door?
Because absent a massively available, safe vaccine, which must surely be at least months away, I can't see any other way of getting back out of lockdown than mass testing AND surveillance, and I fully expect it.
Exactly
Obviously you can't have a gathering of just one person - but don't we believe Christ is with us always, anyway?
Well the last part of this is just logically wrong.
I mean sure, you can point to the thing about 2 or 3 gathered together (note: I agree on the drafting failure to indicate whether an amount greater than 3 still counts, where are the words "at least"?), and to another passage that encourages the habit of meeting together.
But focusing on that does rather raise questions about Christians who are ordinarily on their own. And not in a position to gather, or even just not inclined to. Hermits have long been a thing.
If, in the context of legal restrictions about gathering, people start saying how religiously important it is to gather... what exactly are they saying about all the times that gathering didn't occur anyway?
(To be honest, it's pretty typical for people to not be all that interested in a right/freedom they have until it's under threat.)
Aahh yes I see - what I meant to imply what that in seeking to a apply a non existent law (which that one still is), they are breaking another law by exceeding their powers.
The consequences of doing something unlawful vary rather a lot, of course. Doing something "beyond power", not authorised, is not something I would regard as "breaking another law" unless there was in fact a specific law that covered what was done.
Rather disappointing.
It brings to mind an opposite example that occurred here some years ago, where the Chief Minister announced that (for some reason that escapes me now) people would be able to drive their cars in a certain bus only lane... and the police promptly booked people for doing so, on the entirely correct premise that what the Chief Minister said in a press announcement wasn't the law, what the Legislative Assembly passed was the law.
This morning travelling to Wrexham to go out on patrol and pulled over by my own local policing officers, doing a great job, although their faces were a picture. Keep up the good work.
Nothing in this is at all unique to churches. You'd have to track them to bars, libraries, grocery stores, and everywhere else that people go.
You'd also have to track all their kids, because the adorable little plague vectors are good at sharing viruses with each other. But lots of kids don't have phones, but do go to the playground by themselves / with other neighbourhood kids. What's your solution for that?
Another point is that historically, intelligence services are more interested in where you worship than in where you shop or borrow books (this is unquestionably the case where I live).
I think I'd go along with QR code clocking in and out of a place of worship as a reasonable price to pay for being able to resume some sort of Christian normality, but I'm expecting that this would not meet with unmitigated enthusiasm from some of those quick to criticise Rodney Howard Browne, and I certainly wouldn't expect the surveillance potential to be ignored by the intelligence services.
That's what they're doing here. Under the Public Health Act, they interrogate you about everyone and everywhere. And they do the same with each of your contacts. Testing them all. This is easier when case numbers are small. We've 200 in a population of 1.1 million with some 11,000 tests conducted. Some of which where 1 test can represent 4 people: one member of a family tests positive, the family is presumed to all have it. And are mandatorily quarantined at home. Thus the true number of cases is probably 1000.
My point is that "your contacts" need to include your kids' contacts. The proposal was for an electronic means of tracking who "your contacts" are - which people sat near you on the bus, who you were in the pub or at church with. That has to include "whose children shared playground climbing equipment with your children" if it's going to work, doesn't it? As it warms up, kids are going to be more and more keen to be outside.
But whether the Talmudic requirement of a minyan or the belief that the Shekinah is present within a minyan reflects oral teaching that was in place by the time of Jesus I can’t say.
I certainly hope so.
Sobering.
Well, all playgrounds are closed here as of 3 weeks ago, as have been pubs, restaurants, gyms, churches, libraries, schools, universities, everything. So we're beyond the general physical contact issues now and need for that level of tracking now. We had the physical distance recommendations which have become enforceable since, for longer. The Public Health Act gives broad powers without any additional laws needing to be passed. They will arrest (police wearing protective equipment) violators, jail them, fine them. It's pretty blunt, very much like impounding a car on the spot if someone uses a cell phone and drives. There's no court, it just happens. But as far as I understand it, everyone is complying, and the enforcement is more police giving lawful orders and people saying okay, sorry.
You may walk in parks but keep physical distance. Busses are operating, rear entry to the bus only and at 20% capacity, people must space within, free now- no payment. Whole bus interior is sanitized every hour. You may go to a park, but children and people may not congregate at all. Grocery stores and pharmacies are open, limited number of people at a time, usually 10 max in the building, and they do not accept cash. You must pay with a card, and the card (credit or bank) will identify you and the time. One family member only in any store. All other stores are closed. We're taking a spray bottle of 1 part bleach, 9 parts water and spraying everything off that comes into the house.
While delivery is possible, mostly anything else you need is ordered online here, and you pick it up. If you're not in a car, they set it down and you collect it. Internet is completely free, data on cell phones is free of charge. If you cannot manage the internet, you call one of the agencies, or churches or the one mosque here and they do it for you and drop it to your door. Payment apps exist for cell phones allow the beaming of payments between them without physical contact. The number of volunteer deliverers is high, delivery is usually next day, though same day is occurring now. I think people are bored and want a legit reason to be safely out of their houses. The tendency is to comply here.
It is probably working. We had 9 new cases province wide yesterday (population of 1.1 million), down from 30 and 22 a few days ago. Our biggest worries are homeless and the jails. It looks like hotels are setting up to be used. With stay in your room orders for 2 weeks. Going to be hard.
Time frame? Schools and all other educational institutions are all online, with plans to have them online in the fall as well. I suspect no restrictions lifted for 3 months if trends are as I understand them. Though I wouldn't be surprised for restrictions through to 2021.